patrick.net

Seems to prove it is possible.

So basically we are like India.

Does that sound about right?

Your point is well taken. --- you are absolutely right

And to continue the idea.... just look at the voting procedures in practically every peer nation ... Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, etc. Voting laws even more strict than USA 30 years ago, not to mention comparing to the absolute fraud that we have now.

Id should be required.

India has 300 languages, each state is different culture. Tons of religions. Anyone can start their own religion. Lot of freedom for minorities, same rights. They even gave asylum to Sikhs, jain, jews etc getting killed in muslim areas. Recently ppl moved from ukraine.

Up to 1500s india had great trade n well off. But some groups think they are better n want to separate country. They were enslaved by Muslims mainly bcs of infighting. Some groups don't learn.

Separatist Sikhs are pure retards. They have same rights as rest of the country. If they ever became independent, Pakistan would attack n kill rest of them immediately. Who owned sikh land before sikh , and what religion did they emerge from? Separatist are retarded child on drugs. You give your own child room to live n they think they own the house.

I’m going to say, no. We need to be less like India and more like America was before globalists and woke psychopaths took over.

I think the original post mean that we should be more like India in requiring ID to vote, hands dipped in ink to prevent multiple voting, exactly one day of voting, and all votes counted by sundown.

I agree with all of those.

It wasn't suggested that we should adopt all of India's problems.

KgK one says

Who owned sikh land before sikh , and what religion did they emerge from? Separatist are retarded child on drugs.

From my understanding, which is admittedly limited, Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism which evolved in response to the Muslim invasions of India. The Sikhs needed to emphasize self-defense to survive.

But when any region of a country gets significantly richer than the other parts, they think about separating and saving the tax money which is flowing from their region to the rest of the country, especially if they have a distinct culture or language. I think it's the same situation with Catalonia in Spain. Richer area, different language.

Patrick says

I think the original post mean that we should be more like India in requiring ID to vote, hands dipped in ink to prevent multiple voting, exactly one day of voting, and all votes counted by sundown.

I agree with all of those.

It wasn't suggested that we should adopt all of India's problems.

Voter ID is a reasonable expectation. But it is nobodies business who votes or doesn’t vote. So keep your ink away from me. And one day of in person voting is also reasonable, with adequate polling sites and volunteer vote counters that is entirely possible.

Just like we did it for many years here in America before the woke globalist psychopaths took over.

Well, I do think that the US is an offshoot of Britain. We got most of our laws from Britain, but with some essential and major improvements, like the abolition of aristocracy, and the Frist and Second Amendments.

I agree that SIkhism seems democratic and reasonable as a religion. One can join or leave without fear of being murdered, unlike Islam.

Sikhism has roots in the religious traditions of northern India such as Sant Mat, Hindu Bhakti, and Sufism.[1] However, Nanak's teachings diverge significantly from Vaishnavism in their rejection of idol worship, the doctrine of divine incarnations, and a strict emphasis on inward devotion; Sikhism is professed to be a more difficult personal pursuit than Bhakti.[2] The evolution of Nanak's thoughts on the basis of his own experiences and study have also given Sikhism a distinctly unique character.

Scholars have presented Sikhism as both a distinct faith and a syncretic religion which combines some elements of Hinduism and Islam. Sikhs maintain that their religion was directly revealed by God, and many of them consider the notion that Sikhism is a syncretic religion to be offensive.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sikhism

I'm not trying to be offensive. I think all religions evolved out of the conditions of their time.

Sikhism thus evolved in response to four main elements. The first of these was the ideology based on the religious and cultural innovations of Guru Nanak and his nine successors. The second was the rural base of Punjabi society. During the period of Guru Arjan the founding of the villages of Taran Taran, Sri Hargobindpur, and Kartarpur in rural areas saw large numbers of converts from the local Jat peasantry. It may have been the militant traditions of the Jats that brought the Sikh Panth into increasing conflict with Mughal authorities, a conflict that shaped the future direction of the movement. The third factor was the conflict created within the Sikh community by dissidents, which originally worked to counter and then, paradoxically, to enhance the process of the crystallization of the Sikh tradition. The fourth element was the period of Punjabi history from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in which the Sikh Panth evolved in tension with the Mughal authorities.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/eastern-religions/buddhism/sikhism

I was wondering, where did @Farmerswon got that map from and its from a Khalsa website.

https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_(Raj_Karega_Khalsa)

I was just wondering how did the present day indian states match the 1858 map.

I have a question for him how long did the Sikh empire last?

Here is the actual map:
https://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/india/1858__ID.html

In india , you are allowed to create new types of religion.

Farmerwon has never been to India so doesn't know shit. He is subscribed to some hate group, points to random website as if they are facts. Shiv Ling is both dick and vigina under it. Its symbolizes union, lingam and yoni together to symbolize the union of the male and female principles and the totality of all existence. Dont take these literal, try to look for positive message under it. People pray to dead bodies, rocks, angels, books....
India had women goddesses n treated women fairly since begining of time. Criminals in any religion will do crime, poverty increases such. But rape n such has always been rejected. India has harshest law against rape. There are lot of protests if any such happens.

Guru nanak was hindu , almost of his followers were from various sects of hindo. Sikhs may have taken parts from Islam but they hate Sikhs, West Punjab has no sikh left. While india has given asylum to many. Except for brain washed separatist, Sikhs n various hindu sects live comfortably. Usually both Buddhist n hindu belive in peace and ahimsa, but if attacked obviously they fight back.

personal

Please stop personally attacking each other.

First of all, it never works to convince anyone of anything.

Secondly, it degrades the conversation, which should be about things which perhaps can be changed for the better.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, here is the best way to argue:

1. state opponent's position to his satisfaction
2. find points of agreement; there is always something that people basically agree on
3. give argument against opponent's position

SunnyvaleCA says

And to continue the idea.... just look at the voting procedures in practically every peer nation ... Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, etc. Voting laws even more strict than USA 30 years ago, not to mention comparing to the absolute fraud that we have now.

Germany is pretty lax in this regard. Heard it from a guy who actually worked as an observer there.

FarmersWon says

I can't allow Hindooo cult to defame Sikhs.

Well, to be honest you are also defaming Hindus.

It is valid to argue against specific policies, violence, even aspects of a religion. I think Islam is a terribly violent religion, but I don't think most Muslims are bad people.

But Hindus are fellow human beings and there must be some things you agree on. If you start from there you might convince someone.